= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
NMJablonski comments on The Amazing Virgin Pregnancy - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (271)
Wow, that's right up there with attempts to define God that end up defining God to be "the universe", "the laws of physics", or "mathematics".
Yes, technically you can define God to be any of these things and any of the above definitions would make me a theist. However, I don't think any of the above definitions are particularly helpful.
All I'm saying is that there needs to be an intelligence, some value-having agent or entity, in order for actions to be judged. If there is no intelligence, there are no values.
I don't see how that follows.
My position is more-or-less the one argued by Marius in this thread. Especially the second posibility in this comment.
Also, I think it would be better to take all further discussion into that thread.
Judging requires an agent. But values does not. That just requires an object capable of representing information. The universe could have values built into it even without having intelligence to be judging with it. (Completely irrelevant observation.)
In fact judging only requires an optimization process. Not all optimization processes are agents or intelligent.
It doesn't even need to be an optimization process. Just a process.
I see what you mean there, but without intelligence those values would be just static information. I don't see how the moral realist's conception of objective morality can make any sense without an intelligent agent.
I suppose, in connection with your point about "subjective objectivity" a moment ago, I can see how any set of values can be said to "exist" in the sense that one could measure reality against them.
Edit: That doesn't seem to change anything ethically though. We can call it objective if we like, but to choose which of those we call "right" or "moral" depends entirely on the values and preferences of the querying agent.
And if someone changes their values of preferences as a result of exhortation or self-reflection...what do values and preferences then depend on?
The physical change in a mind over time, i.e. cognition.
If someone chooses, or would choose, to adopt a new value or preference, they do so by referring to their existing value / preference network.
I've considered this idea before, but I can't imagine what if anything it would actually entail.